By Dave Grossman and Pat Moauro

War resisters Kim Rivera and Chris Vassey spoke frankly in London Nov. 26 about their experiences while serving with U.S. military forces, and their disillusionment with the effects those military actions were having on the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Kim, a young mother of three who served in Iraq, and Chris, who served in an airborne army unit in Afghanistan, spoke to about 40 people in the Wemple Lounge at King’s University College after the showing of a video, War Resisters Speak Out.

The 55-minute video included Andy Barrie, host of CBC Radio 99.1’s Metro Morning, and former U.S. draft dodger from the Vietnam War, interviewing a panel of 15 War Resisters. Included on the panel in the video were Kim Rivera and Jeremy Hinzman, who attends Toronto Monthly Meeting.

Despite the seriousness of the topic, Kim Rivera, 27, displayed a sense of humour, smiling warmly as she engaged in lively conversation with us. For a “battle-hardened” military person, she also exhibits a humility that few would notice, unless you heard her speak at length. As we chatted with her after her talk to the group, she recounted how nervous she was last week while introducing and sitting next to Malalai Joya (the Afghan woman MP who was banned from her parliament post).

This peace circle that some of us are involved in really is a small one – Ottawa Quakers were preparing last weekend to billet Joya – click here and here to see how this comes full circle with accusations in the testimony of Richard Colvin against Canadian Defense Minister Peter MacKay and former Chief of the Defence Staff, Rick Hillier.

Kim Rivera said that if she had not gone through the Iraq-and-to Canada-routine, she probably wouldn’t have experienced the peace in her heart that she now enjoys. She would have just been one of those “we’re-number-one-and-we-deserve-everything-Americans”.

Assigned to a U.S. army artillery unit and sent to Iraq in 2006, Kim changed her views and feelings about fighting there, especially after seeing the effects the war was having on the Iraqi civilians. In early 2007, while on leave, she and her husband and their two young children (they have since had a third) drove north from their Texas home and crossed the Rainbow Bridge in Niagara Falls.

Chris Vassey’s story is a littledifferent. Born and raised in New Jersey, he joined the U.S. army right after his 17th birthday. Now 23, he has already put in five years as a soldier and member of the 82^nd Airborne Division, jumping out of planes and doing reconnaissance work. He was destined to becom an officer but decided he wanted to be a private first, so he could understand what they have to go through.

Instead of going to Iraq, he went to Afghanistan. But he knows full well the horrors that Joya talks about; he was similarly horrified by war and could not in conscience stay in the military. So, in August, 2008, he came to Canada to join his fellow War Resisters.

In his comments at the Nov. 26 meeting, Chris shared some insights into the lack of empathy and compassion displayed by some American soldiers he served with in Afghanistan. I (Dave) won’t share those reflections with you (unless you ask). His comments about fellow soldiers took my breath away, forcing me to look down and sigh.

Chris is intelligent and articulate, as he relates his military experiences and how he became disillusioned with his country’s involvement in Afghanistan. While he’s learning construction on the job, he foresees being sent back to the U.S., convicted in a military court and having a lifelong record that will blacklist him from most jobs, thus making his construction experience come in handy.

Chris, Kim and other War Resisters seeking refuge in Canada said they are concerned about being sent back to the U.S. If Canada refuses to allow them to stay here, the War Resisters could face a military court martial and be sentenced to at least one year in jail. Such a conviction would wreck havoc with their future.

The London War Resisters Support Group sponsored the meeting with Kim and Chris at King’s College. David Heap, a professor of French and linguistics at the University of Western Ontario, introduced the video and Kim and Chris. Prof. Heap said some War Resisters are able to stay in Canada because they have been sponsored by a spouse. Many others, however, are “staring down removal” from Canada and being returned to the U.S.

Upwards of 70 U.S. War Resisters are in the public eye, but “a lot of them are underground,” he said, adding that an estimated 300 to 500, or possibly more, are currently in Canada. Prof. Heap noted that a majority of Canadians – an estimated 65% – are in favour of allowing the U.S. War Resisters to remain in Canada. “The (Canadian) government is out of step on this one.”

Dave Grossman is a member of Yarmouth Monthly Meeting. Pat Moauro is a member of Coldstream Monthly Meeting and editor/publisher of an electronic newsletter, Quaker Gleanings.

After about 3 years and some change I have completed my Masters of Arts in Military History with a concentration in World War II at American Military University.  Today I learned the results of my comprehensive exams which I took last Tuesday.  I “Passed with Distinction.”  That was very satisfying because I did work hard all the way through the program which I began about a year after I finished the Marine Corps Command and Staff College and my Doctor of Ministry in 2005.  I finished with a 4.0 GPA and will officially graduate in Washington D.C. on February 15^th. 

The program was pretty grueling and to refresh my brain I began to take and re-write various research papers or essays that I had written during the program and posted them on this site.  I found that in doing so I improved what I had written and was able to really refresh my knowledge even as I added more information to the posts or otherwise reworked them. Doing this has given me inspiration to begin writing on new topics in history dealing with military history and theory, church history and religious liberty, including the freedom of conscience, historical theology as well as baseball and my own story of my tour in Iraq and subsequent struggle with PTSD.  Some of these articles and essays are posted throughout this site. I hope to turn at least some of this into books at a later date.  If you happen to be a publisher, literary agent or know one please let me know.   

One thing that I have enjoyed is having others comment on my work, some even to criticize it.  I found that the criticism was sometimes not just of the work but of me for enunciating opinions that are contrary to theirs.  Terms like “traitor” “unbeliever” and “heretic” have been used to describe me by some.  I have found that if you don’t want criticism of your work don’t write.  If doesn’t matter what the subject is, whether you are liberal or conservative, Christian or something else that there will be someone who will take issue with either your work or you.  I have learned that depending on the type of criticism I can take it seriously, lightly or blow it off, but I am learning not to take it personally.  Heck, most critics don’t know me from Adam so what do they know.  People who know me on the other hand I do try to listen to and if I am wrong, misinterpreted or wrote something that I really didn’t want to come out the way that it did to be generally civil to my critics and treat them with respect.  I think only once or twice I replied to people in a snarky way.  I am not afraid to mix it up with someone, see the comments ton my post on A Christian Defense of the Rights of Moslems in a Democracy but try never to demean the person by name calling, stereotyping or vilifying their position but sticking to the facts and hoping to build a bridge of reconciliation even if we cannot come to agreement.  On the other hand there are a few individuals and groups that I have been somewhat sarcastic or hard in dealing with, but only because they open themselves up to it by, to use a baseball metaphor, throwing at the other teams’ batters.  I figure if they want to throw at people then I can throw at them.  Since fair is fair I would imagine that some of these kind folks are praying for me using “impreccatory prayers.”  Oh well. 

Anyway, a couple of other things.  Today we hosted LTC Dave Grossman a leading expert on the effects of combat and killing on the human body, mind and spirit.  Dave has written the books On Killing and On Combat. He is highly sought after works heavily with military, police and emergency services personnel as well as those in the psychiatric, psychological and chaplain/clergy fields.  The seminar was well attended by a diverse audience of physicians, nurses, psychologists, chaplains, social workers, counselors, corpsmen and others.  I met him late last night when his plane came in, picked him up this morning and took him back to the airport before coming back to the medical center for the rest of my on-call shift. 

The first time that I met Dave was a EOD Group Two where we hosted him about a year and a half ago.  At the time I was in the middle of my post deployment PTSD crack up.  Everything was setting me off, the Great Dismal Swamp was burning, visibilities were down to half a mile, the sky was “Iraqi Sandstorm Brown” and smelled like the burn pits that litter that country.  Every sound, loud noise, jet aircraft, especially F-18s, helicopters and sudden move was sending me back to Iraq.  We hosted Dave as I said and he was most gracious during his presentation then, but his subject matter send me down hard back then.  It was after that seminar that our Diving Medical Officer looked at me and asked “Chaplain are you okay?”  To which I had to say no, I was crashing and it was really difficult.  I’m doing better now and while some of Dave’s presentation did affect me, it was not to the extent of last year.  I held together and realized that I will get through this, that I will be stronger for what I have gone through and hopefully be able to help others who have suffered the same or worse.  While I was in Iraq I was “in the zone” and it was coming home to a world that didn’t seem to understand what I had experienced, what I had learned and at least initially didn’t seem to care for me or value what I did that sent me down. 

Today made me realize that I am doing better.  I’m not where I want to be.  I still have great problems with sleep and some issues with anxiety as well as some flashbacks, dreams and nightmares, but not like they were even a year to 9 months ago. 

So, not much else for the night.  I’m praying that I don’t get a 0230 or 0300 page and that I get 4-5 hours of sleep. 

Thank you for your prayers, support and encouraging and even non-encouraging words since I started this site back in February.  So many people have been so kind to me, in person and in their responses to what I write here and on the link in my Facebook page to my articles that I am blown away. What really matters is when I get a comment from someone with PTSD or a family member of someone who let me know that something that I wrote touched them. I think that matters more than anything that something that was so difficult and even devastating to me is now helping others who thought that they were alone.  It also feels really good to have completed the work for the Masters Degree and to realize that I am getting better.

I think tomorrow after work I shall take a breather at the Church of Baseball, Harbor Park Parish as well as take the Abbess over to Gordon Biersch for the Stein Club appreciation night. Take care and blessings,

Peace, Padre Steve+

On this weeks episode of MTR I was joined by Deadliest Warrior hosts Max Geiger & Geoff Desmoulin who discussed Deadliest Warrior season one as well as gave us some insight on the upcoming second season. Max and Geoff shared some great stories and provided greater understanding to some of the battles.

Out of everything we talked about I was surprised how hard the Al-Qaeda v IRA episode was on the cast.Max took the oppurtunity to educate us on the impact that landmines have on civilians caught in these dangerous warzones. He shared the Adopt A Mindfield site which is a great organization. The Campaign helps save lives by raising funds for mine clearance, mine risk education, and survivor assistance ranging from physical rehabilitation to vocational trainings and psychosocial support. AAM also engages in advocacy initiatives to foster awareness about the impact of landmines, cluster bombs, and all explosive remnants of war. If you want to help your fellow man and do something special please check it out and help protect innocent people from getting hurt.

Geoff explained alot of the biological aspects of the  battles as well as some great literary recommendations such as

On Killing

And  Wired For War

I enjoyed having them on and learned alot. I also appreciated the time they spent discussing other things from the show. Have a listen and enjoy!

My Take Radio Episode 13

The Secret of Monkey Island: Special Edition – Gameover.gr

Ο Ron Gilbert, ο Tim Schafer και ο Dave Grossman, παρέδωσαν για λογαριασμό της ιστορικής LucasArts, το The Secret of Monkey Island, ένα τίτλο-σταθμό για το gaming, που κυκλοφόρησε για τους ηλεκτρονικούς υπολογιστές το 1990.

Το “Αριστούργημα του Γέλιου”, όπως χαρακτηρίστηκε από πολλούς, κατάφερε να αλλάξει για πάντα τον τρόπο που αντιλαμβανόμαστε το χιούμορ. Οι έξυπνοι διάλογοι, που παράγουν ατελείωτο γέλιο και ο πανέμορφος σχεδιασμός, είναι τα κύρια, αλλά τόσο απλά συστατικά που συνθέτουν τον απίθανο αυτό σύνολο.[next]

Related articles by Zemanta

• The Secret Of Monkey Island SE Micro-Review: Still Fights Like A Cow [Review] (kotaku.com)
• Rumor: Secret of Monkey Island coming to XBLA (joystiq.com)
• Monkey Island, Now On Your iPhone [Monkey Island] (kotaku.com)
• Interview: Monkey Island – The Return of Adventure Games (xbox360.ign.com)
• The Secret of Monkey Island: SE Review (wireless.ign.com)

Hubo un tiempo allá por los 90 en que dos grandes entidades se disputaban el trono de la aventura gráfica, género nacido con el objetivo de transmitir una sensación similar a la que le cine produce en el espectador, a golpe de ratón. Una aventura basada por encima de todo en el guión de la misma y en la investigación mediante los diálogos, la lógica (a veces un tanto abstracta) y la manipulación de objetos. Grandes mentes se pusieron manos a la obra aprovechando el sobreforramiento de las compañías, las cuales por aquel entonces arriesgaban bastante más que ahora en profundizar en las posibilidades de la videoaventura.

Ya existían por aquel entonces las llamadas “Aventuras conversaciones”, aquellas en las que tenías que escribir las acciones con el teclado y esperar con ansia que fuera lo que el juego esperaba que tecleásemos en pantalla. Eran juegos complicados, enormemente difíciles, sobre todo si no se conocían los métodos abreviados y éramos impacientes como para tirarnos horas intentando saber dónde ir (y cómo). Aquel complejo sistema de aventura requerían una dedicación que impedían que el género evolucionara en aquella misma dirección, dando la oportunidad a otras mentes de coger todo aquello y volver a crearlo, casi desde cero.

IMPORTANTE: ES RECOMENDABLE HABER ACABADO EL JUEGO ANTES DE LEER ESTA REVIEW. NO CONTIENE SPOILERS GIGANTES, PERO LAS IMÁGENES HABLAN POR SÍ SOLAS.

Así nacieron maravillas provenientes, principalmente, de Lucasfilm Games (ahora Lucasarts), que contaba con el apoyo del propio George Lucas para la subvención necesaria de los títulos, y Sierra Entertainment, gran y longeva compañía donde las haya. Fueron momentos dulces, venidos a llamarse “La edad de oro de las aventuras gráficas”, donde gigantes como Day of the Tentacle, Sam & Max, King Quest o el bueno de Larry nos obligaban a rompernos la cabeza con las mil y una dificultades que sus juegos atesoraban. Eso sí, casi siempre con el humor como principal protagonista.

Puede que no fuera la primera (no lo fue), pero sin duda se trata de aquella que marcó un antes y un después en el concepto del videojuego de aventura. Un terceto de genios se juntaron bajo una misma idea y desarrollaron la que es, para muchos, la mejor saga de aventuras gráficas de la historia. Evidentemente, y debo hacer siempre hincapié en ésto, nunca me referiré a la patética cuarta parte, y dejando parcialmente a un lado la tercera parte, puesto que el equipo detrás del título no era exactamenteel mismo (faltaban las cabezas pensantes, pero quedaban los demás a cargo de otras nuevas), y ésto se notaba cantidad.

Sin embargo, los dos primeros títulos, diseñados y creados por los grandiosos Ron Gilbert, Tim Schaffer y Dave Grossman (con un fantástico Steve Purcell como apoyo artístico) fueron el auténtico comienzo de todo lo que vendría después. Monkey Island se convirtió, por méritos propios, en un motivo más que suficiente para crear escuela, y hoy Lucasarts ha tenido un detalle con nosotros, los que vivimos el momento en toda su plenitud, y nos ofrece una revisión de aquel primer “The Secret of Monkey Island”.

Este remake no es tal. No se puede considerar un remake 100% porque, realmente, el juego es exactamente el mismo. Sin embargo, es imposible obviar las mejoras que presenta esta “Special Edition”, ya que saltan a la vista. Gráficos rehechos en su totalidad, a una calidad de 1920×1200 (1080p), animaciones suavizadas, voces (en inglés, eos sí) y la fantástica banda sonora de Michael Land remasterizada y ligeramente retocada. Las ilustraciones que sustituyen a las pixeladas (aunque memorables) creaciones de la versión original gozan de estilo propio, si bien respetan tanto la composición como la ambientación global en todos y cada uno de los planos del juego. Los añadidos en los escenarios, si bien son únicamente visuales, son muy de agradecer, aunque quizá han puesto mucho más empeño en reproducir el puerto de la Isla Melee, y mucho menos en el resto de escenarios. Hay determinados paisajes, como las playas de Monkey Island, que son calcadas de las originales, sólo que claro, respetando el potencial aumento de resolución y color. Pero no resultan tan impactantes como contemplar el Scumm Bar con un montón de barcos (antes sencillamente inexistentes) amarrados al puerto de la isla.

He de decir que no todo brilla en el apartado gráfico, y es que la propia imagen del protagonista, Guybrush, ha sufrido una transformación poco agraciada. Guybrush ahora es más estilizado, pero es algo de lo que el personaje no se aprovecha para bien. El peinado que le han colocado es tan surrealista como antiestético. Demasiado caricaturesco incluso. Lechuck es un personaje de aspecto totalmente bestial. Parece mucho, mucho más peligroso que antes, lo cual está bien, pero descuadra un poco a los que, como yo, llevamos viendo a Lechuck desde que la saga vio la luz. Elaine es quizá, junto con los personajes secundarios en su mayoría, la más parecida a su versión noventera. Meathook, la maestra de la espada, o el tendero son la viva imagen, en alta resolución, de sus anteriores representaciones. Una de cal y otra de arena en ese sentido.

Con la música, nada que objetar. Espectacular y luce mejor que nunca. Estoy impaciente por ver lo que son capaces de hacer con la aún mejor banda sonora del Monkey 2 (estoy convencido de que van a hacerlo, habida cuenta del final del 1 . La revisión de temas míticos como el principal, el de Lechuck, o el del Scumm Bar cobran un nuevo sentido gracias a la regrabación de todas las pistas, y la inclusión de nuevos arreglos y detalles que enriquecen los tracks originales del Sr. Land. Un placer para los oídos.

Con las voces tengo una pequeña queja. Las voces sí, son probablemente clavadas a lo que se reproducía en nuestras cabezas en la versión original. Sin embargo, hay ocasiones en las que la interpretación parece algo forzada y exagerada. Demasiado “dibujo animado” para unos chistes que beben del humor inteligente estilo Groucho o Woody Allen. El absurdo de muchos diálogos no es siempre poner tono graciosete. La versión que al menos yo leía tenía una entonación bien distinta y sarcástica. Quien siga a cualquiera de los dos grandes humoristas que he citado antes sabrá a qué me refiero. Diálogos ácidos, rápidos y absurdos. Me parece un buen doblaje, pero me da que los nuevos jugadores pueden malinterpretar bastantes “hachazos” y perder gracia en general, cosa que en este título en concreto, es prohibitivo. Deberían haber tomado ejemplo de la saga por capítulos de Sam & Max, que han clavado absolutamente la interpretación.

Tampoco el interfaz ha salido beneficiado. Es mucho más limpio, pero al respetar el sistema original de verbos, el menú que los contiene así como el inventario se muestran ocultos hasta que los sacamos con la tecla en cuestión. En consolas jugar a una aventura gráfica sin ratón es un impedimento, pero en PC que tenemos la suerte de gozar de un teclado todo lleno de teclas, e incluso un ratón poderoso con unos cuantos botoncetes, NO PODER REDEFINIR LOS CONTROLES es para darles un tirón de orejas a los desarrolladores. A ver, es muy fácil. Hay un sistema, un control que se hizo hace casi 20 años. Si querían cambiarlo podían haber adaptado el control “coin” del tercer Monkey, aquel en el que dejábamos pulsado el primer clic en un objeto y aparecían las diversas opciones, dejando el botón derecho para sacar el inventario.

Pero no, a no ser que asignemos a los botones del ratón las funciones CONTROL y ALT, no tendremos forma (al menos hasta donde yo sé) de jugar a una mano. Es un paso atrás en el control, incomprensible desde luego, y que exige sacar una y mil veces los menús en lugar de contemplarlos directamente en pantalla o facilitarlo en el propio ratón. Y no, no se puede asignar  desde el juego, sino desde el panel de control que, de existir, podremos configurar desde Windows. Teniendo en cuenta que desde la época del Spectrum se pueden redefinir los controles, me parece simplemente que la sección artística ha trabajado el triple que los programadores. El diseño de la inferfaz es confuso, inusual, y aleja al jugador clásico de su forma de jugar que tantas veces hemos usado durante los años. Ni siquiera la rueda del ratón, que supuestamente es un acceso directo a todas las funciones, resulta útil, dado que gozamos de 9 verbos de acción y rotar desde ellos es un petardo encomiable.

Por el otro lado de la balanza tenemos, simple y llanamente, que es el primer Monkey Island, que siempre ha sido mi juego favorito junto con su segunda parte, con una remasterización global mucho más que remarcable, que nos dará el placer de volver a jugar a uno de los juegos más importantes e influyentes de la pasada década. Un antes y un después marcado por un personaje de nombre impronunciable que ahora pueden disfrutar los más jóvenes, rezagados, o simplemente pecadores de no haber jugado a esta obra maestra del videojuego.

Es por este aluvión de ideas positivas y negativas que me vienen a la cabeza, que no tengo más remedio que puntuar por separado el juego en sí, y la puesta al día que supone esta edición especial. Si nunca has jugado al Monkey, es imprescindible que lo hagas. Además, se puede pasar del modo clásico al nuevo con sólo pulsar un boton, por lo que podréis apreciar en toda su pixelada maravillosidad a lo que un servidor, y tantos otros, jugábamos con los ojos brillantes como si fuésemos niños (demonios! ÉRAMOS niños!). Si ya has jugado al Monkey, te lo vas a pasar igual de bien, pero supongo que, como yo, habrá cosas que nuestro corazón más friki y afín a la obra original tendrá que rechazar por ser, simplemente, peores. Por lo demás, una revisión impecable, que de haber resuelto mejor el control y la actuación de los dobladores, habría llegado a la nota máxima sin mayores problemas.

Valoración “Special Edition”: 8.5

1UP: 10
IGN: 8.7
GAMESPOT: 8

Valoración juego original: 10

Recently, I had the chance to read Martin Evans’ Afghanistan: A Short History of Its People and Politics for the first time. One of the things that struck me most was  it struck me how education (specifically, the philosophies of education) was a marked fissure in the rise of the Taliban. According to Evan’s account, a divide opened up between those who received a secular education from institutions such as the Law Faculty of Kabul University and members of the Taliban who have their roots in Deobandi madrassas. As Evans writes, “[i]t is not merely the ethnic or tribal divide that separates the Taliban from such ‘Islamists’ as Rabbani, Hekmatyar and Massoud, but also the fact that the latter were educated in ‘modern’, rather than ‘traditional’, educational institutions” (204-205).

As I thought about it more, I began to see education as a significant thread throughout the Long War.  Indeed, the theory and doctrine of counterinsurgency is intertwined with the notion of education. COIN, so says FM3-24, “is not just thinking man’s warfare—it is the graduate level of war.” More important, it is a difficult, ongoing, and perhaps impossible education. One of the most widely read books on the subject, John Nagl’s Learning to Eat Soup with a Knife: Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam says so much in its title, borrowed from the writings of COIN icon T. E. Lawrence. Lawrence himself was a practicing archeologist before he found his way into the Arab Revolt to promote British interests. He was a warrior-intellectual in a time when, as documented by Fussell and others, British commanders’ lack of creativity lead to the needless slaughter of tens of thousands.

As embodied by the likes of General David Petraeus, the warrior-intellectual is the new vogue. Among them is Craig Mullaney, author The Unforgiving Minute: A Soldier’s Education.  On his website, he remarks on the difficulties of educating counterinsurgents:

The ideal soldier would be a micro-financier with a doctorate in anthropology, speak Dari and Pashto, be an expert marksman, and have served as a mayor in a farming community. The military doesn’t have the resources or time to produce this bionic counterinsurgent, but it can do a better job educating soldiers so that they’re faster at learning and adapting in unfamiliar environments. We do a great job of making sure units have the weapons they need to fight, but in a counterinsurgency, often the best weapons don’t shoot. The challenge is to fertilize units with the right mix of additional specialties so that they’ve got the right “weapons” for this kind of fight.

Indeed, this fact that the best weapon does not shoot complicates the the education of the soldier who must yet rely on weapons that do shoot. As Dave Grossman wrote in On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society, overcoming the resistance to killing involves a number of factors including the creation of cultural distance between the warfighter and the enemy. At the same time, counterinsurgents promote collapsing that distance through ever-greater cultural awareness.

The way we think about education our fighting men and women has been challenged in a number of other ways.  Tom Ricks has opened the debate on the closing of the military academies. Others like Gian Gentile have argued against the increasingly dominant position of COIN, making the case manuals such as FM3-24 have divorced the actual fighting of war from doctrine. Others still debate our focus on training for counterinsurgencies and whether it has diminished our capacity to fight conventional “peer competitors” and hybrid threats.

This is by no means an exhaustive list how education plays a role in our current conflicts, but I intend to follow this thread again in the future.

In einer Talkshow bei Maybrit Illner (youtube) sagte  Dagobert Lindlau folgendes:

Die Amerikaner haben festgestellt, dass ihre Soldeten in bewaffneten Nahkampfsituationen zu 80% eine Hemmung haben den anderen niederzuschiessen, nach der Schulung mit solchen Dingern, die wir unseren Kindern zumuten sinkt das auf 20%. Das sind Zahlen, die nicht zu wiederlegen sind.

Diese Aussage bezeichnete Fokus Redaktuer Joachim Hinzel in seimen Artikel sogar als einzige ueberzeugende These eben dieser Sendung. Gund genug fuer mich, die Aussage mal genauer unter die Lupe zu nehmen. Da mir derartige Studien nicht bekannt sind, fragte ich Herrn Lindlau nach einer Quellenangabe, die eben dieses bestaetigt. Schon ein paar Stunden spaeter bekam ich folgende Antwort:

“Viele exakte Quellen. Die wichtigste:  Lt.Col.Dave Grossman: ON KILLING – The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society“

(Das ist in der Tat die komplette Mail, auf jegliche Art von Grussformel verzichtete Herr Lindlau unverstaendlicher Weise). Das Buch selbst ist ein 400 Seiten starkes populaerwissenschaftliches Werk (wp: “Grossman nennt seine Thesen, nach denen eine natürliche Hemmung zu töten durch Konditionierung herabgesetzt werden kann, “Killologie”. In der Wissenschaft werden seine Publikationen nicht rezipiert.“), hat also zur Untermauerung seiner These schonmal einen sehr fragwuerdigen Wert. Zudem wurde es 1995 veroeffentlicht, ist also auf dem Stand der Forschung von vor 14 Jahren.

Trotzdem hab ich mich mal mit dem Werk beschaeftigt. Da Herr Lindlau darauf verzichtete, genauere Angaben zu machen und mir einfach die Zeit fehlt, das komplette Werk zu lesen beschraenkte ich mich auf den Abschnitt ueber Medien (also Filme und Videospiele). Dort fand ich dann einen Abschnitt, der zwar andere Zahlen nennt, aber auf den sich Herr Lindlau scheinbar bezog.

Dort erklaert der Autor, dass beim US-Militaer die normalen runden Schiessscheiben auf dem Schiesstand durch menschliche Pappaufsteller ersetzt wurden, die jeweils nur fuer kurze Zeit hochgefahren werden, in welcher der Soldat reagieren und sie umschiessen muss. Also im Prinzip das, was wir auch aus vielen Filmen und Videospielen kennen. Dadurch soll der Soldat lernen, innerhalb kuerzester Zeit zu reagieren. Ausserdem erhaelt er beim umschiessen instantan eine Rueckmeldung, ob er einen Treffer erzielt hat oder nicht. Weiter erklaert der Autor, dass die Soldaten fuer besonders gute Leistungen am Schiesstand belohnt werden “If he knocks down enough targets, the soldier gets a marksmanship badge and usually a three-day pass.“, wodurch eine konditionierung wie beim Pawlowschen Hund erfolgen soll. Der Autor schliesst den Abschnitt mit folgendem Absatz:

This process may seem simple, basic, and obvious, but there is evidence to indicate that it is one of the key ingredients in a methodology that has raised the firing rate from 15 to 20 percent in World War II to 90 to 95 percent in Vietnam.

Im weiteren vergleicht der Autor eben diese Schiessstaende mit den zu dieser Zeit sehr populaeren Lightgun-Shootern. Und geht sogar soweit zu sagen, dass im Gegensatz zu den Soldaten, die waehrend dieses Konditionierungsprozesses unter strenger Aufsicht stehen, jugendliche Spieler diese Konditionierung ohne jegliche Beaufsichtigung erfahren, und somit durch Computerspiele zu Killern erzogen werden.

Wenn man dies also einfach mal als Fakt hin nimmt und mit der Aussage von Herr Lindlau vergleicht, stellt man schon einen gewaltigen Unterschied zwischen Lindlaus und Grossmans Aussage fest. So spricht Grossman von der Konditionierung als Schluesselelement, um die Toetungshemmung zu unterbinden, waehrend Lindlau diesem Verfahrung eine Senkung um 60% zuspricht.

Jedoch ist schon Grossmans Aussage mit Vorsicht zu geniessen. So sagt er “es gibt Beweise”, ohne irgendwelche Quellen anzugeben. Das heisst ueber die Verfahren der Zahlenerhebung und Methodik eventueller Studien laesst er den Leser vollkommen im Dunkeln. Das macht seine Folgerungen natuerlich schwer angreifbar, was dem Autor wahrscheinlich ganz recht ist. Der weitere Abschnitt ueber die Konditionierung Jugendlicher behauptet nichtmal, dass es Beweise fuer die aufgestellten Behauptungen gibt,  sondern liest sich schlicht und einfach wie eine Schlussfolgerung, die Grossman fuer sich aufgestellt hat.

Prof. Dr. Thomas Hausmanninger der Universitaet Augsburg veroeffentlichte 2005 ein Review zu Grossmans Nachfolgewerk “Wer hat unseren Kindern das Töten beigebracht? Ein Aufruf gegen Gewalt in Fernsehen, Film und Computerspielen.“, welches scheinbar die Argumentation der Konditionierung weiter aufgreift. In selbigem wirft er Grossman vor, dass seine Thesen der monokausalen Zusammenhaenge zwischen Gewaltbereichtschaft in der Gesellschaft und Darstellung von Gewalt in den Medien schon lange widerlegt seien und spricht von einer undifferenzierten Betrachtungsweise Grossmans. Ein weiterer Grund Grossmans Aussagen mit einem gehoerigen Mass an Skepsis zu betrachten.

Als Fazit laesst sich also sagen, dass Lindlaus These keineswegs ueberzeugen kann, und seine Zahlen durchaus widerlegbar scheinen. Ich werde Herrn Lindlau auf diesen Artikel hinweisen, vielleicht liefert er ja doch noch eine der “viele exakten Quellen”, die sich dann als brauchbar herrausstellt.

Nachtrag: Lindlaus Antwort fand ich dermassen unhoeflich und ignorant, dass ich ihr einen eigenen Artikel gewidmet habe.

Nachrag 2: Einen weiterer, lesenswerter Artikel zu dem Thema wurde kuerzlich auf Computer Game Studies veroeffentlicht.

Over the past week, in addition to fucking up severely and repeatedly at work, I read the book On Killing: the Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society by Lt. Col. (Ret.) Dave Grossman. It’s an interesting book that I picked up at Barnes & Noble while trying unsuccessfully to find a copy of Hobbes’s Leviathan.

In this book (which was written in the mid-90s), Grossman appears to have… well, I can’t exactly say how many main points. That’s one of the problems with the book, from a “sit-down-and-read-this” perspective: it verges on the meandering in its breadth. I think this may have been intentional, though, as early on in it Grossman states that his intent is to write a seminal work to get the ball rolling in the field of “killology” (he parallels his work to Kinsey and Masters & Johnson in establishing the field of sexology). As a result, what the book contains includes hypotheses and attempts to entheorize that:

1. Normal humans have an inherent reluctance to kill each other, and historically this has included the majority of soldiers in combat
2. Factors for overcoming this reluctance to kill include distance (physical and social/moral/mental) between killer and killed; group activity; rationalization and denial mechanisms; desensitization; an authority to shift responsibility to; and behavioral modification through classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and social learning
3. Following World War II, the U.S. and similar militaries altered their training methods to incorporate more of these factors (particularly desensitization and conditioning) in order to overcome soldier’s unwillingness to kill in combat
4. The act of killing (or being psychologically prepared and committed to killing) is a uniquely traumatic detriment to a person’s mental health
5. During the Vietnam War, U.S. military training achieved unprecedented success in overcoming the vast majority of soldiers’ unwillingness to kill at the same time there was an unprecedented failure of the support structures and methods needed to prevent the trauma of being able to kill from causing lasting psychological injury, hence the unprecedented epidemic of post-traumatic stress disorder among Vietnam War veterans
6. American civilian society is replicating the desensitizing and behavioral-modification aspects of military training that create the willingness to kill but not replicating the “obedience to command authority”-inculcating behavioral modification of military training that controls the when and why of actual killing, and the result is a constant increase in violent crime.

Like I said, he touches on a lot, and I’m leaving out some of his points. Unfortunately, I think that in his quest for breadth he sacrificed too much of depth, and I also think some of his points are given in too conclusory a manner, with the evidence just sort of gestured at. Still, I think the book’s interesting, and Sections I-VI provide an interesting, if at times annoyingly freshman intro-course sort of not-in-depth, survey of the psychology of killing (in combat). Section VII is entitled “Killing in Vietnam: What Have We Done to Our Soldiers?”. And while Section VIII (the 5-chapter section on Point 6) does, in my opinion, reflect a little too much of moral panic directed towards Violently Anarchic Breakdown of Society and blaming that Catastrophic Problem on Film, Television, and Video Games, for the most part Grossman tries to steer well clear of Jack Thompson/Tipper Gore territory (though Wikipedia indicates he may have gone there in later years), clearly stating that the difference in degrees of violent content between different works does matter, and even going so far as to extol various virtues of video games in general.

Also, Section VIII includes the truly wonderful Endnote 3:

But the situation is more complex. Correlation does not prove causation. To prove that TV causes violence you must conduct a controlled, double-blind experiment in which, if you are successful, you will cause people to commit murder. Clearly to perform such an experiment with human beings is unethical and largely impossible. This same situation is the foundation for the tobacco industry’s continued argument that no one has ever “proven” that cigarettes “cause” cancer.

There comes a point when, in spite of this type of reasoning, we must accept that cigarettes do cause cancer. Similarly, there comes a point at which we must accept the verdict of 217 correlation studies.

Correct reasoning or not, I love that endnote. I’d love it more if it were a footnote, though – endnotes are a pain in the ass, what with having to flip to the back of the book. Also, the endnotes are sparse, and I’m thinking if he’d used footnotes there’d have been more of them and I wouldn’t have felt so much like the Wikipedian Protestor.

My understanding is that Grossman wrote a sequel, On Combat: [Subtitle I can't be bothered to look up] back in 2004. I’m curious about that, to see if it contains any analysis of the current war in Iraq, in light of the Vietnam War analysis in Section VII.

Actually, I want to quote a paragraph from Section VII. On page 283/284, if you want to be specific:

During the Vietnam era millions of American adolescents were conditioned to engage in an act against which they had a powerful resistance. This conditioning is a necessary part of allowing a soldier to succeed and survive in the environment where society has placed him. Success in war and national survival may necessitate killing enemy soldiers in battle. If we accept that we need an army, then we must accept that it has to be as capable of surviving as we can make it. But if society prepares a soldier to overcome his resistance to killing and places him in an environment in which he will kill, then that society has an obligation to deal forthrightly, intelligently, and morally with the psychological event and its repercussions upon the soldier and society. Largely through an ignorance of the processes and implications involved, this has not happened with the Vietnam veteran.

I tend to think largely in physical, concrete terms. You know, “If you can’t poke it, it ain’t real.” As a result, I’ve had difficulty with the concept of “support the troops” in a non-materiel context. Grossman explained it well for me, right there.

We’re jumping in the deep end, people-that-aren’t-visiting-this-blog-yet.
Over the next few days I will be sending some letters to a few people that I would like to hear from regarding the state of censorship in Australia and whether or not they support the idea of there being an R18+ classification in Australia.
I intentionally plan on not arguing my point across at them because I don’t want to know that anything I have said has clouded their existing judgement.

When Kevin Rudd was elected Prime Minister of Australia, I – as many others at the time – thought that this move would incite some changes in the way the country has been run. So far, the only changes that have been made were the ones that are necessary to keep the Government in office because they promised during the election campaigns to make said changes. Primary one would be the withdrawal from Iraq.
However, this is not a blog based on that aspect of politics.

What has become painstakingly clear to a lot of the contemporaries is that this Government is not intent on making any changes to censorship and classification laws. Granted, I have been unable to establish Governor-General Designate Quentin Bryce’s stance on the topic, but given that she is a 65-year-old politician with heavy involvement in children’s welfare – and having herself five grandchildren to five of her own children – I believe there is a good chance she will retort with the “we must protect our children from this vicious social disease” bullshit that Barnaby Joyce spits everywhere.
Lucky I brought Barnaby up, too, because I forget about addressing a letter to him. Swell.

[I know you can't tell, but I'm going to go and have my (now 5-hour cold dinner) and return with a fully belly of splendorous potato bake]

And I’m back.
I was only gone XX minutes. Did you miss me?
Bah, no-one’s reading this anyway, what does it matter?

Anyway, so…
The dilemma we have is that, if I am not mistaken, it’s the Attorney-General in a position to introduce the R18+ classification. This sounds a little stupid, but from what I’ve been reading lately it seems like it’s the only way to get it to happen.
Now, I’m not in the business of making assumptions and sweeping statements, so take what I just said with a grain of salt and make sure that you display some independence of thought and search for yourself.

People I’ll be targeting in this batch will be:

• Lt. Col. (ret’d) Dave Grossman – Killologist
• Governor-General of Australia Designate Quentin Bryce
• Attorney General of Australia Robert McClelland
• Barnaby Joyce and
• Jack Thompson.

I know it may seem like I’m jumping in the deep end, but as these people variously offer the greatest potential resistance or the half-arsed arguments that are used to justify this resistance, I’m going to find out what they have to say.
I’ll post my sendings and their responses for you.

Also, I am fully aware that Barnaby Joyce is a relative nobody, but I’ve heard him say the most ignorant and inflammatory things of anybody I have heard speak on the topic.
Seriously, the guys a dunce and shits me off – he supports mining of Antarctica… Like it’s a good idea…
Idiot.

Relevant Links:
Anthony Larme’s Games Censorship Collection
Interactive Entertainments Association of Australia: R18+ Classification Gap Discussion (PDF)

Army Specialist Joseph Dwyer became the poster boy for the Army when Army Times photographer Warren Zinn captured a moment that summed up the valor of Soldiers at war. In March 2003, in the first days of the Iraq war, Dwyer was caught in a serious fire fight and came face to face with the aftermath of war in the face of a small child named Ali.

Dwyer watched as Ali’s family near the village of al Faysaliyah was caught in the crossfire. He grabbed the 4-year-old boy from his father and sprinted with him to safety. Zinn grabbed the moment on his camera. The image went nationwide and Dwyer found himself hailed as a hero.

To see the images CLICK HERE

Here is his story in Dwyer’s own words “Now outside the Bradley, I watched the sun rise above palm trees still smoking from the bomb strike. A man came down the path, an 800-meter dirt stretch from his house to the road, carrying a white flag on a stick. He was met by our troops and an interpreter. After first being checked as an enemy combatant, he explained how he was trying to ferry his family on a boat on the Euphrates River, away from the danger. His family was caught in the crossfire of the fighting, and four were injured, including the small child who eventually was featured in the photograph. The troops told him to go back and bring out the injured, and they would treat them. Minutes later the man appeared at the end of the path running with a small child in his arms. A medic next to me darted down the road to meet the man. I could see it happening before me.

Fully trusting, the man handed his son over to the medic. I clicked the shutter. He headed back for other wounded family members as the medic took the boy, turned and began running. I clicked again. The boy was in his arms, and the medic rushed him back toward the mini hospital other soldiers were setting up. I grabbed another frame.

I watched the soldiers care for the boy. One held his hand and rubbed his head as doctors removed shrapnel from an open wound in his leg. More soldiers then came running with a woman on a stretcher. Out of the blue, a Red Crescent (Iraqi) ambulance arrived. The wounded were loaded into the ambulance, sparsely outfitted inside with a single oxygen bottle and a floor strewn with blood and other wounded civilians. The doors shut, and the white van drove off.”

On June 28, 2008; Dwyer died of an overdose in his home in Pinehurst, N.C., at 31 years of age. He had struggled with severe PTSD for the past five years. Apparently, unable to console himself with his wartime experience, he had turned to “huffing” fumes from aerosol cans and taking pills.

In October 2005, Dwyer suffered psychotic breaks, which lead to a three hour standoff with police in El Paso, Texas. He believed that he was fighting Iraqi insurgents after hearing a noise outside his window. In that incident, the police were able to diffuse the situation without injury.

In June 26, 2007; almost exactly a year before; Dwyer had been committed to a psychiatric ward after he called 911 asking for help dealing with his PTSD. He is survived by his estranged wife of two years and daughter. The couple broke up shortly after moving from Texas to North Carolina.

The real tragedy of this story is that more couldn’t be done. The government has repeatedly been reported on by conservative and liberal media as dispassionate about PTSD. For every story that is told about a new “Wounded Warrior” program, there are ten stories of Soldiers who are being discharged with lesser diagnosis of “emotional distress” and “personality conflicts” or not ignoring any recognition of symptoms and discharging Soldiers who have “behavioral problems” or “poor performance.”

With nearly 25 percent of Iraqi veterans returning with some form of PTSD, it is obvious that there is something systemically wrong with how we are fighting the war.

In Colonel Dave Grossman’s book “On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society,” (a book I really recommend you read) he gives great examples of how violence has affected Soldiers throughout history. The mind is able to withstand a lot of abuse, but there are lines that cannot be crossed without permanent damage.

In the Battle of Gettysburg, they found rifles that were loaded 5, 7 and 10 times without being fired. Statistically speaking, at the distances that people were shooting, Grossman believes that each army should have been able to mow down each other in a matter of minutes, but the battle lasted days. Many Soldiers were documented as willing to load ammunition for a battle buddy and let them fire. Soldiers were also recorded as more than willing to put themselves in harm’s way, but unwilling to take a life even when their own life stood in the balance.

In World War II, historians started seriously recording the stress of “shell shock” and the battle behavior of Soldiers. It is estimated that Soldiers start suffering serious mental damage after 30 days of continuous battle stress. The British army created 10 day rotations of Soldiers to relieve fatigue. The U.S. Army held their Soldiers to a 30 day battle limit, whenever possible.

Regardless, the estimated Soldier kill ratio came up to a staggering low number. It was estimated that only 10 percent of fighting Soldiers intentionally aimed and hit human enemy targets in Germany.

Korea was slightly different. The ability to dehumanize the enemy increased the kill ratio to 50 percent. That number did not go unnoticed by the Defense Department. By the time we entered Vietnam, Soldiers were trained from the first day of boot camp that the enemy was inhuman. They used terms like “gook” as often as possible. Bad behavior was ignored when dealing with the locals.

The program was an immediate success and the kill ratio moved to an astounding 90 percent. What the military failed to do, however, was develop a plan on how to deal with our Soldiers when they came home. When they had time to think about what they had done. When the Soldier was able to reassemble the reality that the enemy wasn’t a faceless demon but a young boy, he could not cope.

Our country did not know how to deal with these new PTSD patients in mass, and the VA was not able, the government was not willing, and the American people not interested in helping these vets. While hippies called these Soldiers baby killers, they should have been seeing them as living victims of war.

Now we are in a new war, and unlike the lessons that were learned on how to make our Soldiers more effective killing machines, we should have also learned how to keep these courageous, and brave warriors, safe from the mental anguish that we ask them to experience and endure for a lifetime.

We had 40 years to learn how to prevent the mental illness and aftermath that we had to deal with from returning Vietnam vets. Shame on us if we do not see Specialist Dwyer as a call to action now, instead of ignoring this problem for another 40 years.

Big news for Wii owners today!

Telltale Games, the wonderful people behind the new Sam and Max episodic games, have announced that they have teamed up with JoWooD Production Software AG and DreamCatcher Inc. (The parent company of The Adventure Company, who was co-publisher on the PC release of Sam and Max) to bring the critically-acclaimed entire first season of Sam and Max to the Nintendo Wii console this fall!

The decision to bring the franchise over to Wii was a no brainer due to the substantial fan outcry for the series to get a release on Nintendo’s little white box. The overwhelming combination of fan emails, rumors from various gaming press in light of Telltale Games’ recent announcement of bringing some new titles to Wii, and perhaps some light cajoling from a certain blogger/podcaster to Dave Grossman of Telltale, fueled enthusiasm from the developer and publishers to bring the series over to Wii.

Nintendo’s Wii is a perfect fit for the Sam & Max games. The series’ story-driven gameplay and episodic structure has often been favorably compared to TV sitcoms. The new Wii version will present Sam & Max in a format that can be enjoyed from the comfort of the living room, either alone or with a group of friends—a setting perfectly suited for this kind of experience. The game’s easy-to-use interface has a low learning curve, making it ideal for the Wii’s broad consumer audience.

-Emily Morganti, Telltale Games

I personally am super excited for this news. As a long time Sam and Max fan, Wii owner, and advocate for adventure games to be released for the unique system, this was one of those press releases that had me almost falling out of my chair to do a write up ASAP!

Thank you Telltale for being so in touch with your user base! Now if only we could get Nintendo to be the same way with EarthBound! (Yes I totally went there.)

In this episode Chris talks about his trip to the Game Developers Conference this year in San Fransisco. He also had the distinct pleasure of interviewing Dave Grossman, of Day of The Tentacle, and more recently Sam and Max fame. We talk about the new episode of Sam and Max, and some hints of Telltale’s other future projects (they’re working on a Wii game!). Dave also has a website, check it out!

Phrenopolis.com

Also check out the Telltale Games Website! Sam & Max 204 Chariots of the Dogs, is available now for Game Tap subscribers as well as the Telltale Website. Play it today!

Standard Podcasts [27:10m]|Left click to Download

  Digg this Podcast! 

Seis años después de que Maniac Mansion revolucionara el concepto de las aventuras gráficas, Lucas Arts nos sorprenderia con el lanzamiento de la secuela. Se trataba de Day of the Tentacle, un videojuego que superaría al original y se convertiría en título de referencia dentro del mundo de las aventuras gráficas. El proyecto estaba liderado por Dave Grossman y Tim Schaffer, los cuales ya habían participado activamente en el desarrollo de la saga de The Secret of Monkey Island. Day of the Tentacle era una aventura del tipo “point & click” (apuntar y cliquear) que, aunque no aportaba una revolución tecnológica al género, tenía una personalidad propia que la hizo convertirse en un título inolvidable.

Para seguir leyendo pulsa aquí.

On Sheep, Wolves, and Sheepdogs – Dave Grossman

By LTC (RET) Dave Grossman, author of “On Killing.”

Honor never grows old, and honor rejoices the heart of age. It does so because honor is, finally, about defending those noble and worthy things that deserve defending, even if it comes at a high cost. In our time, that may mean social disapproval, public scorn, hardship, persecution, or as always,even death itself. The question remains: What is worth defending? What is worth dying for? What is worth living for? – William J. Bennett – in a lecture to the United States Naval Academy November 24, 1997

One Vietnam veteran, an old retired colonel, once said this to me:

“Most of the people in our society are sheep. They are kind, gentle, productive creatures who can only hurt one another by accident.” This is true. Remember, the murder rate is six per 100,000 per year, and the aggravated assault rate is four per 1,000 per year. What this means is that the vast majority of Americans are not inclined to hurt one another. Some estimates say that two million Americans are victims of violent crimes every year, a tragic, staggering number, perhaps an all-time record rate of violent crime. But there are almost 300 million Americans, which means that the odds of being a victim of violent crime is considerably less than one in a hundred on any given year. Furthermore, since many violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders, the actual number of violent citizens is considerably less than two million.

Thus there is a paradox, and we must grasp both ends of the situation: We may well be in the most violent times in history, but violence is still remarkably rare. This is because most citizens are kind, decent people who are not capable of hurting each other, except by accident or under extreme provocation. They are sheep.

I mean nothing negative by calling them sheep. To me it is like the pretty, blue robin’s egg. Inside it is soft and gooey but someday it will grow into something wonderful. But the egg cannot survive without its hard blue shell. Police officers, soldiers, and other warriors are like that shell, and someday the civilization they protect will grow into something wonderful.? For now, though, they need warriors to protect them from the predators.

“Then there are the wolves,” the old war veteran said, “and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy.” Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial.

“Then there are sheepdogs,” he went on, “and I’m a sheepdog. I live to protect the flock and confront the wolf.”

If you have no capacity for violence then you are a healthy productive citizen, a sheep. If you have a capacity for violence and no empathy for your fellow citizens, then you have defined an aggressive sociopath, a wolf. But what if you have a capacity for violence, and a deep love for your fellow citizens? What do you have then? A sheepdog, a warrior, someone who is walking the hero’s path. Someone who can walk into the heart of darkness, into the universal human phobia, and walk out unscathed

Let me expand on this old soldier’s excellent model of the sheep, wolves, and sheepdogs. We know that the sheep live in denial, that is what makes them sheep. They do not want to believe that there is evil in the world. They can accept the fact that fires can happen, which is why they want fire extinguishers, fire sprinklers, fire alarms and fire exits throughout their kids’ schools.

But many of them are outraged at the idea of putting an armed police officer in their kid’s school. Our children are thousands of times more likely to be killed or seriously injured by school violence than fire, but the sheep’s only response to the possibility of violence is denial. The idea of someone coming to kill or harm their child is just too hard, and so they chose the path of denial.

The sheep generally do not like the sheepdog. He looks a lot like the wolf. He has fangs and the capacity for violence. The difference, though, is that the sheepdog must not, can not and will not ever harm the sheep. Any sheep dog who intentionally harms the lowliest little lamb will be punished and removed. The world cannot work any other way, at least not in a representative democracy or a republic such as ours.

Still, the sheepdog disturbs the sheep. He is a constant reminder that there are wolves in the land. They would prefer that he didn’t tell them where to go, or give them traffic tickets, or stand at the ready in our airports in camouflage fatigues holding an M-16. The sheep would much rather have the sheepdog cash in his fangs, spray paint himself white, and go, “Baa.”

Until the wolf shows up. Then the entire flock tries desperately to hide behind one lonely sheepdog.

The students, the victims, at Columbine High School were big, tough high school students, and under ordinary circumstances they would not have had the time of day for a police officer. They were not bad kids; they just had nothing to say to a cop. When the school was under attack, however, and SWAT teams were clearing the rooms and hallways, the officers had to physically peel those clinging, sobbing kids off of them. This is how the little lambs feel about their sheepdog when the wolf is at the door.

Look at what happened after September 11, 2001 when the wolf pounded hard on the door. Remember how America, more than ever before, felt differently about their law enforcement officers and military personnel? Remember how many times you heard the word hero?

Understand that there is nothing morally superior about being a sheepdog; it is just what you choose to be. Also understand that a sheepdog is a funny critter: He is always sniffing around out on the perimeter, checking the breeze, barking at things that go bump in the night, and yearning for a righteous battle. That is, the young sheepdogs yearn for a righteous battle. The old sheepdogs are a little older and wiser, but they move to the sound of the guns when needed right along with the young ones.

Here is how the sheep and the sheepdog think differently. The sheep pretend the wolf will never come, but the sheepdog lives for that day. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, most of the sheep, that is, most citizens in America said, “Thank God I wasn’t on one of those planes.” The sheepdogs, the warriors, said, “Dear God, I wish I could have been on one of those planes. Maybe I could have made a difference.” When you are truly transformed into a warrior and have truly invested yourself into warriorhood, you want to be there. You want to be able to make a difference.

There is nothing morally superior about the sheepdog, the warrior, but he does have one real advantage. Only one. And that is that he is able to survive and thrive in an environment that destroys 98 percent of the population. There was research conducted a few years ago with individuals convicted of violent crimes. These cons were in prison for serious, predatory crimes of violence: assaults, murders and killing law enforcement officers. The vast majority said that they specifically targeted victims by body language: slumped walk, passive behavior and lack of awareness. They chose their victims like big cats do in Africa, when they select one out of the herd that is least able to protect itself.

Some people may be destined to be sheep and others might be genetically primed to be wolves or sheepdogs. But I believe that most people can choose which one they want to be, and I’m proud to say that more and more Americans are choosing to become sheepdogs.

Seven months after the attack on September 11, 2001, Todd Beamer was honored in his hometown of Cranbury, New Jersey. Todd, as you recall, was the man on Flight 93 over Pennsylvania who called on his cell phone to alert an operator from United Airlines about the hijacking. When he learned of the other three passenger planes that had been used as weapons, Todd dropped his phone and uttered the words, “Let’s roll,” which authorities believe was a signal to the other passengers to confront the terrorist hijackers. In one hour, a transformation occurred among the passengers – athletes, business people and parents. — from sheep to sheepdogs and together they fought the wolves, ultimately saving an unknown number of lives on the ground.

There is no safety for honest men except by believing all possible evil of evil men. – Edmund Burke

Here is the point I like to emphasize, especially to the thousands of police officers and soldiers I speak to each year. In nature the sheep, real sheep, are born as sheep. Sheepdogs are born that way, and so are wolves. They didn’t have a choice. But you are not a critter. As a human being, you can be whatever you want to be. It is a conscious, moral decision.

If you want to be a sheep, then you can be a sheep and that is okay, but you must understand the price you pay. When the wolf comes, you and your loved ones are going to die if there is not a sheepdog there to protect you. If you want to be a wolf, you can be one, but the sheepdogs are going to hunt you down and you will never have rest, safety, trust or love. But if you want to be a sheepdog and walk the warrior’s path, then you must make a conscious and moral decision every day to dedicate, equip and prepare yourself to thrive in that toxic, corrosive moment when the wolf comes knocking at the door.

For example, many officers carry their weapons in church.? They are well concealed in ankle holsters, shoulder holsters or inside-the-belt holsters tucked into the small of their backs.? Anytime you go to some form of religious service, there is a very good chance that a police officer in your congregation is carrying. You will never know if there is such an individual in your place of worship, until the wolf appears to massacre you and your loved ones.

I was training a group of police officers in Texas, and during the break, one officer asked his friend if he carried his weapon in church. The other cop replied, “I will never be caught without my gun in church.” I asked why he felt so strongly about this, and he told me about a cop he knew who was at a church massacre in Ft. Worth, Texas in 1999. In that incident, a mentally deranged individual came into the church and opened fire, gunning down fourteen people. He said that officer believed he could have saved every life that day if he had been carrying his gun. His own son was shot, and all he could do was throw himself on the boy’s body and wait to die. That cop looked me in the eye and said, “Do you have any idea how hard it would be to live with yourself after that?”

Some individuals would be horrified if they knew this police officer was carrying a weapon in church. They might call him paranoid and would probably scorn him. Yet these same individuals would be enraged and would call for “heads to roll” if they found out that the airbags in their cars were defective, or that the fire extinguisher and fire sprinklers in their kids’ school did not work. They can accept the fact that fires and traffic accidents can happen and that there must be safeguards against them.

Their only response to the wolf, though, is denial, and all too often their response to the sheepdog is scorn and disdain. But the sheepdog quietly asks himself, “Do you have and idea how hard it would be to live with yourself if your loved ones attacked and killed, and you had to stand there helplessly because you were unprepared for that day?”

It is denial that turns people into sheep. Sheep are psychologically destroyed by combat because their only defense is denial, which is counterproductive and destructive, resulting in fear, helplessness and horror when the wolf shows up.

Denial kills you twice. It kills you once, at your moment of truth when you are not physically prepared: you didn’t bring your gun, you didn’t train. Your only defense was wishful thinking. Hope is not a strategy. Denial kills you a second time because even if you do physically survive, you are psychologically shattered by your fear helplessness and horror at your moment of truth.

Gavin de Becker puts it like this in Fear Less, his superb post-9/11 book, which should be required reading for anyone trying to come to terms with our current world situation: “…denial can be seductive, but it has an insidious side effect. For all the peace of mind deniers think they get by saying it isn’t so, the fall they take when faced with new violence is all the more unsettling.”

Denial is a save-now-pay-later scheme, a contract written entirely in small print, for in the long run, the denying person knows the truth on some level.

And so the warrior must strive to confront denial in all aspects of his life, and prepare himself for the day when evil comes. If you are warrior who is legally authorized to carry a weapon and you step outside without that weapon, then you become a sheep, pretending that the bad man will not come today. No one can be “on” 24/7, for a lifetime. Everyone needs down time. But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself…

“Baa.”

This business of being a sheep or a sheep dog is not a yes-no dichotomy. It is not an all-or-nothing, either-or choice. It is a matter of degrees, a continuum. On one end is an abject, head-in-the-sand-sheep and on the other end is the ultimate warrior. Few people exist completely on one end or the other. Most of us live somewhere in between. Since 9-11 almost everyone in America took a step up that continuum, away from denial. The sheep took a few steps toward accepting and appreciating their warriors, and the warriors started taking their job more seriously. The degree to which you move up that continuum, away from sheephood and denial, is the degree to which you and your loved ones will survive, physically and psychologically at your moment of truth.